- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Fwiw, Tom Clancy (the author) has woven Mormon themes into a few of his Jack Ryan novels – and one of them (in “Clear and Present Danger”) deals specifically with the Washington D.C. temple. It’s a really moving moment in the book, and you can read it at the following link (by scrolling down just a little bit to the paragraph that starts, “Jack looked out the window as they passed the Mormon temple . . .”): http://books.google.com/books?id=m6yvblrH__AC&pg=PT462&lpg=PT462&dq=mormon+temple+clear+and+present+danger&source=bl&ots=V6NgmQLd5n&sig=TMY3gHvTkCcZ1-3oIbHaywmhkQg&hl=en&ei=eb3nTp3FA7L1sQKCleXcCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://books.google.com/books?id=m6yvblrH__AC&pg=PT462&lpg=PT462&dq=mormon+temple+clear+and+present+danger&source=bl&ots=V6NgmQLd5n&sig=TMY3gHvTkCcZ1-3oIbHaywmhkQg&hl=en&ei=eb3nTp3FA7L1sQKCleXcCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false (Just as an aside, with no relationship to this thread, his scene in “Without Remorse” where a Mormon POW regains his faith is stunning – absolutely breathtaking. The book isn’t one I would recommend to my mother or lots of other members (due to some really graphic violence and content that deals with rape), but I loved it as a whole – and the scene I mentioned about the Mormon POW is one of the most moving scenes I’ve ever read in any book of any kind.)
I read the Clancy piece Ray. It was inspiring…but I have some questions. Why build a public monument to our faith? Why not the quiet satisfaction of knowing that thousands of people had better lives due to expanded services, education, care, and self-reliance that affects character in both temporal and spiritual ways?
The statement “the poor you will always have with you, but I will not always be with you” never justified the building of temples in my view. Few, if any see Jesus in the temple, as far as I know. So, I see it as kind of lame justification, when Jesus was more likely talking about his physical presence in the New Testament context of the scripture I’m referring to.
True service is anonymous — not grandstanded with bright lights that tell the world….
.
I don’t think Jesus cared about building temples at all – but that might be because there already was one where he lived. He taught in a very, very small area, and he didn’t need to be concerned one whit about building a temple. However, the one time he got downright violent was when he cleared the temple – so it’s hard to say, based on the Biblical precedent, that he didn’t care about temples themselves or think they weren’t important. Now, having said that, I’m not arguing that temples are the best use of funding if they are the exclusive use of funding – or even that everyone should like the number of temples being built. I do think, however, that it’s hard to make a solid argument from a part of the world where temples are relatively convenient and where you can attend whenever you want to do so. I can go to the Nauvoo temple within an hour of leaving my house, so it’s strictly academic to me, in a way – just like it was for Jesus in his time.
I really like Clancy’s paragraph, since it points to something that is rooted deeply in human psychology:
People are wired to reach for the stars. They are wired to build monuments to the divine. Long after everything else is gone, the monuments they built to express their faith still will stand. In that way, their faith lives on – no matter what happens in the world.
Again, we can disagree, with a wide degree of latitude, about exactly how many temples are good and if we are building too many temples, but I just don’t have a problem with the concept and principle of temples. I really, really, really like the concept and principle of temples – and I simply don’t think economic benefit to the Church as an organization is a primary motivator for their being built.
It’s ok to disagree about that, but I really do disagree.
As I said a few times earlier, I don’t think it’s the sole benefit either, but I suspect there is a financial co-benefit that makes such investments over the long-term sustainable. I actually concur that it’s probably a longer-term investment horizon before it pays off. So, in the end, we agree. Cool!
Old-Timer wrote:So, in the end, we agree.
Cool!
Somewhat… I think you lean closer to the spiritual-only end of the spectrum than I do…but at least we acknowledge both spiritual and economic considerations are at work to some degree, not fully agreed to.
If any of us agreed fully on anything, I’d be scared. :ugeek: Agreed!!! 😆 😆 😆 SilentDawning wrote:Somewhat… I think you lean closer to the spiritual-only end of the spectrum than I do…but at least we acknowledge both spiritual and economic considerations are at work to some degree, not fully agreed to.
I do imagine that LDS leadership is aware of temple attendance’s impact on continued participation in the church (to include payment of tithes), but I find it hard to imagine that the idea originated with any of that in mind. The insistence upon the building of temples during the lifetime of JS was a financially ruinous idea.
But if they were financially ruinous during the time of JS, they must have learned something from that. Clearly JS believed in the principle and therefore was willing to build them with faith, in spite of the negative financial impact — but I trust we have learned that we can’t continue investing in financially losing buildings and survive financially. However, how important it is for the Church to have its fiscal house in order, I would suspect that if they didn’t pay back, the Church would alter them in some way. For example, make them out of less expensive materials (say, cinder block with some kind of faux marble, for example, over top, Moroni is gold paint, not gold leaflets) so they don’t turn the Church into a financial wasteland.
The fact that they are so luxurious and built in such volume now is testament to the financial stability the current system of sacrifice affords.
SilentDawning wrote:I don’t know. It’s too idealistic to believe that the Church would invest all that money in cost-centers which don’t provide a sustainable financial return.
There HAS to be some kind of financial benefit to them, or they wouldn’t be investing in them with such voracity.Again, we can’t deny the perceived spiritual benefits either. Perhaps I’m just jaded by my skirmishes with the Church on temporal matters in the past, but I think it’s naiive to think the blessings of the temple in the next life for members ALONE drives the whole thing. One can’t cut off one’s nose in spite of one’s face. To me there is no question that Church leaders are willing to lose money on some individual temples as long as they are not approaching bankruptcy and it looks like they currently have way more money than they know what to do with. Sure temples could provide financial benefits in areas where the nearest temple is so far away that it gives some members another reason to avoid or delay getting temple recommends but that isn’t the case at all with the new temples in Salt Lake County, Bountiful, American Fork, Brigham City, etc. I really doubt having to drive 20-40 minutes more to a temple would have made much of a difference in the percentage of members holding current temple recommends. Personally I think their profit margin is one of the least of most Church leaders concerns and the main reason they want to build more temples is simply because in their minds temple worthiness and ordinances are essential for salvation. So building more temples is one way for them to feel like the Church is making progress and doing everything they can to save souls even though the membership growth has declined recently. I don’t like all the emphasis on temples and temple worthiness but it doesn’t really surprise me because they probably don’t know any better so it sounds like a great way to spend time and money to them.
We will never know I guess….why they would build temples so close to each other in Utah is an interesting question…perhaps simply capacity and use? The other temples just got too busy to handle the volume? DevilsAdvocate wrote:
To me there is no question that Church leaders are willing to lose money on some individual temples as long as they are not approaching bankruptcy and it looks like they currently have way more money than they know what to do with. Sure temples could provide financial benefits in areas where the nearest temple is so far away that it gives some members another reason to avoid or delay getting temple recommends but that isn’t the case at all with the new temples in Salt Lake County, Bountiful, American Fork, Brigham City, etc. I really doubt having to drive 20-40 minutes more to a temple would have made much of a difference in the percentage of members holding current temple recommends. Personally I think their profit margin is one of the least of most Church leaders concerns and the main reason they want to build more temples is simply because in their minds temple worthiness and ordinances are essential for salvation.So building more temples is one way for them to feel like the Church is making progress and doing everything they can to save souls even though the membership growth has declined recently.I don’t like all the emphasis on temples and temple worthiness but it doesn’t really surprise me because they probably don’t know any better so it sounds like a great way to spend time and money to them. I agree this is why the leaders do most things they do, because they feel like it is the right thing to do. I mean what else are they going to do with the money? Build a hospital or clinic or something useful (sarcasm). But really I do think they mean well and this is their way of demonstrating their concern for the members. However I am also convinced the discussion has happened at the highest levels how tithing is related to proximity to a temple. It may not be the reason they feel like they are building them but like many human actions it is driven by a subconscious or unspoken belief.
Are temple presidents paid to serve in that capacity? Does anyone know? I know our local temple has a Temple Presidents’ home owned by the temple. And what about mission presidents — are they also paid? Quote:why they would build temples so close to each other in Utah is an interesting question…perhaps simply capacity and use? The other temples just got too busy to handle the volume?
Exactly.
I went to high school in Payson, UT – the site of one of the newest temples being built. It is 30 minutes south of the Provo temple and about 90 minutes north of Manti (if I remember correctly). The last time I lived there (about 15 years ago, before the population explosion in the area), lots of people attended the temple in Provo quite sporadically – due exclusively to how long they had to wait to get into a session. Instead of having to block out about 3 hours (including drive time) to attend the temple, they had to add an extra couple of hours of wait time in the temple. I know that’s not much of a sacrifice in the eyes of someone who has to drive six hours or ride a bus 20 hours to get to a temple, but it’s a big difference for those doing the actual attending in the area – since it almost doubles their scheduled time away from home.
I imagine it has gotten worse in the last 15 years, since the population in that part of Utah County has increased significantly. The town where I was raised went from four wards when I was growing up to a thirteen ward stake when I moved back – and it might be two full stakes by now. I haven’t checked in a long time.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.